Fabian V Desierto

Topic: Review from judgements or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies | Petition for Review
Rule 43
TERESITA FABIAN vs. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO

GR No. 129742 | September 16, 1998
Doctrine: In line with the regulatory philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi-judicial agencies
in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, appeals from decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under
the provisions of Rule 43.
FACTS:
Petitioner Teresita G. Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMAT
Construction Development Corporation (PROMAT). Private respondent Nestor V. Agustin was
the incumbent District Engineer of the First Metro Manila Engineering District (FMED) when he
allegedly committed the offenses for which he was administratively charged in the Office of the
Ombudsman.PROMAT participated in the bidding for government construction projects
including those under the FMED, and private respondent, reportedly taking advantage of his
official position, inveigled petitioner into an amorous relationship. Their affair lasted for some
time, in the course of which private respondent gifted PROMAT with public works contracts and
interceded for it in problems concerning the same in his office. Later, misunderstandings and
unpleasant incidents developed between the parties and when petitioner tried to terminate their
relationship, private respondent refused and resisted her attempts to do so to the extent of
employing acts of harassment, intimidation and threats. She eventually filed the aforementioned
administrative case against him in a letter-complaint dated July 24, 1995.
The said complaint sought the dismissal of private respondent for violation of Section 19,
Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and Section 36 of Presidential Decree No.
807 (Civil Service Decree), with an ancillary prayer for his preventive suspension.
Graft Investigator Eduardo R. Benitez issued a resolution finding private respondent guilty of
grave misconduct and ordering his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits under
the law. His resolution bore the approval of Director Napoleon Baldrias and Assistant
Ombudsman Abelardo Aportadera of their office. Herein respondent Ombudsman approved the
resolution with modifications, by finding private respondent guilty of misconduct and meting out
the penalty of suspension without pay for one year. After private respondent moved for
reconsideration, respondent Ombudsman discovered that the former's new counsel had been
his "classmate and close associate" hence he inhibited himself. The case was transferred to
respondent Deputy Ombudsman Jesus F. Guerrero who, in the now challenged Joint Order of
June 18, 1997, set aside the February 26, 1997 Order of respondent Ombudsman and
exonerated private respondent from the administrative charges.
In the present appeal, petitioner argues that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman
Act of 1989) 1 pertinently provides that —
In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the
Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a
petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the
order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration in
accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Emphasis supplied)
Page 1 of 2
ISSUE:
Whether or not administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of
the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD:
NO. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal to this Court from
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. It consequently
violates the proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution against a law which
increases the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. No countervailing argument has been cogently
presented to justify such disregard of the constitutional prohibition which, as correctly explained
in First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs. The Court of Appeals, et al. was intended to give this Court
a measure of control over cases placed under its appellate jurisdiction. Otherwise, the
indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction would unnecessarily
burden the Court.
As a consequence of our ratiocination that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 should be
struck down as unconstitutional, and in line with the regulatory philosophy adopted in appeals
from quasi-judicial agencies in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, appeals from
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken
to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43.
Page 2 of 2

Fabian V Desierto

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fabian V Desierto

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fabian V Desierto

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic: Review from judgements or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies | Petition for Review

TERESITA FABIAN vs. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO

You might also like